McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS

Delicate urbanism in context: Settlement nucleation in pre-Roman Germany

The DAAD Cambridge Symposium

Edited by Simon Stoddart Delicate urbanism in context

McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS

Delicate urbanism in context: Settlement nucleation in pre-Roman Germany

The DAAD Cambridge Symposium

Edited by Simon Stoddart

with contributions from Ines Balzer, Manuel Fernández-Götz, Colin Haselgrove, Oliver Nakoinz, Axel G. Posluschny, Gerd Stegmaier, Anthony Snodgrass, Peter Wells, Günther Wieland, Katja Winger and Caroline von Nicolai Published by: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge, UK CB2 3ER (0)(1223) 339327 [email protected] www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2017

© 2017 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Delicate urbanism in context: Settlement nucleation in pre-Roman Germany is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (International) Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

ISBN: 978-1-902937-83-0

Cover design by Dora Kemp and Ben Plumridge. Typesetting and layout by Ben Plumridge.

Front cover: the Goldberg; back cover: the Danube at Kelheim.

Edited for the Institute by James Barrett (Series Editor). Contents

Contributors vi Figures vii Tables viii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Simon Stoddart (Cambridge)

Part 1 Regional differences 7

Chapter 2 Early Iron Age Fürstensitze – some thoughts on a not-so-uniform phenomenon 9 Axel G. Posluschny (Glauberg) Chapter 3 Urbanism of the oppida: a case study from Bavaria 27 Caroline von Nicolai (Munich) Chapter 4 Ritual, society and settlement structure: driving forces of urbanization during the second and first century bc in southwest Germany 41 Gerd Stegmaier (Tübingen)

Part 2 The rural dimension 49

Chapter 5 The rural contribution to urbanism: late La Téne Viereckschanzen in southwest Germany 51 Günther Wieland (Esslingen)

Part 3 The funerary dimension 61

Chapter 6 Burial mounds and settlements: the funerary contribution to urbanism 63 Ines Balzer ()

Part 4 Comparative approaches 85

Chapter 7 Quantifying Iron Age urbanism (density and distance) 87 Oliver Nakoinz (Kiel) Chapter 8 Not built in a day – the quality of Iron Age urbanism by comparison with Athens and Rome 97 Katja Winger (Berlin)

Part 5 Discussion 103

Chapter 9 Discussing Iron Age urbanism in Central Europe: some thoughts 105 Manuel Fernández-Götz (Edinburgh) Chapter 10 Urbanization in Iron Age Germany and beyond 111 Colin Haselgrove (Leicester) Chapter 11 Urbanism: a view from the south 115 Anthony Snodgrass (Cambridge) Chapter 12 On the origins and context of urbanism in prehistoric Europe 117 Peter Wells (Minnesota)

Bibliography 120 Index 134

v Contributors

Ines Balzer Anthony Snodgrass Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom, Via Faculty of Classics, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, Valadier 37, 00193 Rome, Italy. CB3 9DA, UK.

Manuel Fernández-Götz Simon Stoddart Lecturer in Archaeology, School of History, Classics Magdalene College, Cambridge, CB3 0EU, UK. and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, William Robertson Wing, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Peter Wells Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, 395 HHH Ctr, 301 19th Ave S, Colin Haselgrove Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, Günther Wieland LE1 7RH, UK. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Archäologische Oliver Nakoinz Denkmalpflege Ref. 84.1, Fachgebiet Prospektion, Johanna-Mestorf Akademie / Institut für Ur- und Dokumentation und Archäobiowissenschaften, Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Berliner Str. 12, 73728 Esslingen, Germany. Leibnizstraße 3, D - 24118 Kiel, Germany. Katja Winger Axel G. Posluschny Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Keltenwelt am Glauberg, Am Glauberg 1, 63695 Universität Berlin, Fabeckstr. 23-25, 14195 Berlin, Glauburg, Germany. Germany.

Gerd Stegmaier Caroline von Nicolai Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Institut des Mittelalters, Eberhard Karls Universität für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, Provinzialrömische Archäologie, Geschwister- D-72070 Tübingen, Germany. Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 München, Germany.

vi Figures

1.1 Principal region of study. 2 2.1 Map of Princely Sites mentioned in the text. 10 2.2 Area of the magnetometer survey on the Glauberg. 11 2.3 The bronze Celtic style Schnabelkanne from the Princely burial 1 from the Glauberg. 12 2.4 The bronze Celtic style Röhrenkanne from grave 2 from the Glauberg. 13 2.5 Bronze double mask fibula from grave 3 from the Glauberg. 13 2.6 Life-size sandstone statue from a ditch at burial mound 1 from the Glauberg. 14 2.7 Model of a settlement hierarchy for the Early Iron age and alternative hierarchical model 15 2.8 20-km viewsheds from the Heuneburg and Bussen mountain. 17 2.9 Viewsheds of the Hallstatt settlements and Early La Tène settlements in the area around the Glauberg. 18 2.10 Slope based least cost path model of possible routes connecting sites with line-decorated pottery, also found on the Glauberg. 19 2.11 Location of the Princely grave on the Glauberg. 20 2.12 Sizes of the catchment areas that are reachable on foot within a one hour from a settlement. 22 2.13 Core settlement areas of the Marienberg environs in the Urnfield and the Hallstatt periods.y. 23 2.14 Core settlement areas of the Glauberg environs in the Urnfield and the Hallstatt periods. 23 2.15 Early Celtic style Fürstensitze and their relation to the borders of larger regions and major rivers. 24 2.16 Share of settlement sites per 100 years for the Late Bronze Age the Early Iron Age Hallstatt and the Early La Tène period. 25 3.1 Oppida and open agglomerations in the modern federal state of Bavaria. 28 3.2 Manching. 29 3.3 Kelheim. 30 3.4 Fentbachschanze. 31 3.5 Schwanberg. 32 3.6 Berching-Pollanten. 34 3.7 Passau. 35 3.8 Straubing. 36 4.1 Diagram of factors which favoured and led to a process of centralization and the foundation of oppida. 42 4.2 Map of southwest Germany with the two regions of investigation: Heidengraben and Heunebur. 43 4.3 Map of the Late La Tène oppidum Heidengraben. 44 4.4 Plan of the Burrenhof cemetery with Early Iron Age burial mounds and the complex Late Iron Age system of ditches. 45 4.5 Diagram of individual interests that influenced the process of centralization and dispersal during the Late La Tène period. 47 5.1 Aerial view of the well preserved Viereckschanze of Westerheim. 52 5.2 Ground plans and orientation of Viereckschanzen from Baden-Württemberg. 53 5.3 Plan and drawing of the finds from the excavation of K. Schumacher at the Viereckschanze of Gerichtstetten. 54 5.4 Example of a very well preserved rampart at Gerichtstetten. 55 5.5 Range of functional features of the Viereckschanzen. 56 5.6 Plan of the Viereckschanze of Königheim-Brehmen. 57 5.7 Plan of the excavated Viereckschanze of Ehningen. 58 6.1 Magdalenenberg. 65 6.2 Kappel am Rhein. 65 6.3 Burial mounds of Ha D1 to Ha D3 in the region of the Heuneburg and the Hohmichele and other burial mounds. 66 6.4 The Außensiedlung near the Heuneburg. 67 6.5 Clans drawn in from peripheral settlements to the Heuneburg and Außensiedlung and the settlement structures of the Heuneburg. 68 6.6 The Münsterberg of Breisach. 69 6.7 The occupation of the Münsterberg in Breisach. 70 6.8 The Heuneburg and the rebuilt Gießübel-Talhau-Nekropole. 71 6.9 The Hohenasperg. 72 vii 6.10 The Hohenasperg near Stuttgart: Princely tombs. 73 6.11 Settlements of the Iron Age in the region of the Hohenasperg. 74 6.12 The Ipf near Bopfingen: digital terrain model with the fortification-system. 75 6.13 The two hillforts Ipf and Goldberg. 75 6.14 Niedererlbach. 76 6.15 Glauburg-Glauberg. 78 6.16 Glauburg-Glauberg: Tumulus 1 and environs. 79 6.17 Glauburg-Glauberg. Tombs 1 and 2 of Tumulus 1 and the sandstone statue. 80 6.18 Korntal-Münchingen Lingwiesen excavation. 81 6.19 Glauburg-Glauberg: aerial photo of the rebuilt Tumulus 1 and the ditch-system. 82 7.1 Global temperature, colluvial layers in southwest Germany, the Heuneburg population and the number of sites in the Heuneburg area mapped onto the same graph. 92 7.2 Factors influencing the behaviour of the two types of actors in the two agent based models. 93 7.3 Populations of some settlements and interpretation according to one simulation run of abm 2. 93 7.4 An alternative narrative of the Heuneburg development. 94 8.1 Ground plan of the acropolis of Athens and idealized ‘drone’ image of the acropolis of the Heuneburg. 98 8.2 Ground plans of Rome with the area surrounded by the Servian Wall marked in yellow and the oppidum of Manching with the main excavations. 100 8.3 Diversity of building structures in the northern part of the ‘Südumgehung’ at Manching. 101 9.1 Theoretical diagram of relations between the oppidum and its surrounding rural territory, based on the data of the Titelberg area during La Tène D. 107 9.2 Two examples of Iron Age low-density urbanism. A) Heuneburg; B) Bourges. 108 9.3 Idealized model of the Heuneburg agglomeration. 109 9.4 Idealized reconstruction of the centre of the oppidum of Corent. 110

Tables

2.1 Functions of Central Places and their appearance at Early Iron Age Fürstensitze. 16 3.1 Comparison of urban attributes of the sites. 33 7.1 The effect of some kinds of complexity reduction on two community size thresholds. 91 9.1 Archaeological urban attributes, with an application to the Heuneburg and Manching. 106

viii Chapter 8

Not built in a day – the quality of Iron Age urbanism by comparison with Athens and Rome

Katja Winger (Berlin)

This paper is derived from my presentation at the Christaller asserted settlement function as ‘central symposium where my task was to discuss the quality places’ providing certain services to their hinterland of Iron Age urbanism. I decided to do this by compar- (Christaller 1966). Based on knowledge about medieval ing the sites of Heuneburg and Manching, the most settlements, Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer developed prominent and best investigated Iron Age sites from a systemic model by combining geographical and Germany, with sites no less than Athens and Rome, two archaeological data (Gringmuth-Dallmer 1996). His showcases for ancient urbanism. However, before we model ranks settlements with certain functional cri- take a look at the sites themselves, I will make some teria and uses the term ‘complex centres’ to avoid the remarks about the concept of town and city – two problems with the term town/city. Along with these terms that I will use as synonyms in this article – (cf. prominent models, a large number of other terms Fernández-Götz et al. 2014). and patterns exist. So we find ourselves faced with a number of different and also poorly defined terms Not only towns and cities like the afore-mentioned towns, cities, quasi-cities, proto-cities, pre-urban, proto-urban, urban-like or After the introduction of the concept of urbanism for largely urban settlements. Furthermore, we can add prehistoric communities by Vere Gordon Childe (1950), complex centres and central places. Additionally, the Iron Age archaeologists were required to think about terms used by Caesar to describe Gallic settlements as this subject. The result has been a plethora of alterna- oppidum, vicus, aedificium, castellum or urbs are widely tive characterizations of urbanism, while skirting the employed by scholars (Caesar, De bello Gallico). Just to usage of the very term itself. Frank Kolb´s book about name a few more terms common in the definition of ancient Mediterranean towns established the com- Iron Age settlements, I also want to recall the thoughts mon definition of urbanism from an ancient historical of Vladímir Salač, who introduced the terms ‘Lowland perspective (Kolb 1984). He pointed out the features Oppida’, ‘Hilltop Oppida’, ‘Production and distri- ‘topographical closeness’, ‘administrative and political bution centre’ and ‘Němčice-Roseldorf-type centre’ separation’, ‘number of inhabitants’ and ‘urban lifestyle’ (Salač 2005; 2009). For the Early Iron Age, we also for an ancient city and thus raised the bar virtually out have to deal with Wolfgang Kimmig´s model of the of reach for prehistoric settlements. After a long and Fürstensitz(Kimmig 1969) and should not forget that rather fruitless controversy, Bernhard Hänsel proposed Herodotus designated Pyrene (be it the Heuneburg or analogous criteria for prehistoric settlements (Hänsel not) as a ‘polis’ (Herodotus, II 33). Apart from the aim 2005). He highlighted ‘settlement size’, ‘topographical of systematizing the archaeological record, most of concentration of occupation’, ‘variability of archaeologi- these terms are first of all used to avoid designating cal structures’, ‘economic diversity’ and ‘long-distance a settlement as a town or city. contacts’. ‘Long-lasting continuity of urban space’ was For the Mediterranean, we can detect, as far as added as an additional criterion, but not as a sine qua non. I can see, a rather uncritical and widespread use of Beyond these checklists, Jurij Wiktorowitsch the words ‘town’ and ‘city’ for the whole variety of Andreev stressed the transformative character of set- settlements in the Ancient world (cf. Preston & Owen tlements and introduced the terms quasi-city and 2009, 1). A city, in this context, is often mainly seen as proto-city (Andreev 1989). The geographer Walther a collection of architecture. 97 Chapter 8

Ancient Historians as well as classical archae- during the politically relevant periods. Archaeological ologists divide the phenomenon of urbanization into finds date the beginning of settlement in the wider area endogenous and exogenous examples (Vittinghoff of Athens to the late seventh millennium bc (Welwei 1978). Endogenous hereby means an independent 2011, 3–8). Written sources give the Athenians´ belief development of cities, while exogenous cities, for exam- that their ancestors always had been living at the ple the Greek, Hellenistic and Roman colonies, are seen same place (Herodotus VII, 161,3; Thucydides I 2,5) as a transfer of the urban idea of their metropolis to a providing a link to mythical, heroic times. Of course new geographical location. Of course there are transi- we do not have similar sources for the Heuneburg, but tions between these two models – for example when from the archaeological point of view we can detect colonies are placed on former indigenous settlements. Neolithic traces (Fernández-Götz 2014e, 26), and even infer that a similarly mythical linkage might have Athens and the Heuneburg existed. Unfortunately, these traces have been strongly affected by later periods and mainly consist of stray My four case studies are typical examples of endog- finds. In Athens, Neolithic wells and buildings are enous urbanization. The first similarity between all of known from the Acropolis (Welwei 2011, 4) and at the them is their special topographic position, on points Heuneburg a possible Neolithic ditch system has been of intersection between sea and land routes. The cities traced (Krausse et al. 2016, 41–2). developed in long settled areas, even though some More material is available for the Middle and interruptions can be detected particularly in the cases Late Bronze Age, when the Heuneburg plateau was a of the Heuneburg and Manching. The first two places – fortified settlement. Recent excavations also brought to Athens and Heuneburg – both possess a prominent hill light several Bronze Age finds from the lower town and and are situated at places where arterial roads meet outer settlement (Krausse et al. 2016, 46–7). ForAthens , navigable rivers. The application of the term Akropolis the Bronze Age (Helladic period) material is very rich, from Athens to the hilltop plateau of the Heuneburg by although it mostly consists of sherds which mainly Wolfgang Kimmig was the initial point of his Fürstensitz come from the fills of wells and graves (Wycherley model (Kimmig 1969). This acropolis, by contrast with 2015, 253–60; Mountjoy 1981). One special case is the the suburbia, was directly connected to the image of remains of a Mycenaean palace, including access to the the Greek polis in the time of tyranny. underground watercourses of the acropolis (Broneer To draw a short biography of both places we 1939; Nylander 1962). have to start long before the Iron Age. Of course, the After a hiatus lasting some centuries, the clas- chronologies are not in parallel, but what follows is an sical years of the Iron Age Heuneburg began. While attempt to compare the development of the settlements settlement traces from the plateau are absent between

Figure 8.1. Ground plan of the acropolis of Athens (after Papathanassopoulos 1991, fig. 12) and idealized ‘drone’ image of the acropolis of the Heuneburg (after Krausse et al. 2016, fig. 43) to the same scale. The similarity in the size of the plateaus is striking. Most of the buildings shown on the left of the figure are more recent. 98 Not built in a day

Hallstatt A1 and Hallstatt D1, the region around the sixth century, the time in which the Homeric epics Heuneburg was never completely deserted (Fernández- were textually edited, had little in common with the Götz 2014e, 26–7). The Iron Age also represents the idealized picture of Democracy. For the sixth century, classical times of the Athenian city that was continually Athens most scholars assume a number of about only settled. After a period of insignificance, the change is 5000 people which is a number similar to that supposed connected with the names of Draco and Solon. for the Heuneburg in Ha D1 (Kurz 2010, 249). After arrival in the Iron Age, the crucial periods We know very much less about who these people of both places, it is the moment for a more detailed actually were. For Athens, we have written sources comparison of their features. In Athens, it is note- which mainly cover politics, and thus the tyrants like worthy that the most common pictures mostly show Peisistratos and other members of the aristocracy, who Classical structures. Most of her prominent buildings often distinguished themselves as military leaders. did not exist during the heyday of the Heuneburg. One These élite families can also be found in grave archi- exception is the parts of the so called ‘older temple tecture (Wycherley 2015, 253–60). Without written of Athena’ which was built in the last quarter of the sources, we can only assume that the men, women sixth century bc on the acropolis and survived in the and children from the élite burials of the Heuneburg so called Persian destruction levels (Childs 1994). In area (e.g. Krausse et al. 2016, 113–38) may have formed the sixth and fifth century, Athens looked more like a something similar to this aristocracy. For both socie- village than a town and was mostly defined by agri- ties, the information about the socially ‘lower tens of cultural production (Vittinghoff 1978, 553). thousands’ is especially rare. For Athens, the existence The size of both settlements was quite similar of dependents and slaves is documented, but for the (Fig. 8.1). An examination of the ground plans of both German Early Iron Age we can only state the absence hills shows a size of about 3 hectares. Of course, both of many people from the burial record (cf. Trebsche settlements had a huge amount of lower and exterior et al. 2007). As town and country are an inseparable settlement and it is hard to determine the area belong- entity, the presence of farmers who sold their goods ing to the town itself. For Athens, the city walls from the in the city can be assured, as well as the availability fifth century bc document an enclosed area of about of merchants and craftspeople in both settlements. 215 hectares at this time. The size of the territory in the In the times of tyranny, enormous building pro- sixth century is not actually that clear, but by inference grammes were started in Athens – like the monumental from the population increase in the fifth century bc, temple of Zeus Olympios initiated by Peisitratos. The it can be assumed to have been much smaller. At the Heuneburg also exhibits an extremely differentiated Heuneburg, recent research has traced an increased picture of building structures including the monu- understanding of the outer settlements to reach a mental stone gate, the famous mudbrick wall and the size of about 100 hectares (Krausse et al. 2016, 83–4). younger major buildings (Gersbach 1996, 102). To determine the size of the actual hinterland of both settlements­ is inordinately more difficult (forHeuneburg Rome and Manching cf. Nakoinz 2009, 364–8; Sievers 2008). The historical region of Attica has a size of almost 300,000 hectares, The second pair of places is also characterized by but included several areas of land without agricultural their location near a navigable river and accordingly value and was of course never was completely settled a harbour. The cities cover a much wider territory (Lohmann 1993, 285; for the rise of the Athenian polis and are not dominated by a single acropolis. In terms and the role of its chora cf. Snodgrass 1991, 14–17). of size, Rome’s first city walls already surrounded Isotope analyses on bovine and pork remains proves a slightly larger territory than the wall at Manching the mobility of Iron Age cattle (Stephan 2016), which (Fig. 8.2). In terms of the fact that both settlements can be seen as a first step to discover the real territory had sparsely populated and agrarian areas inside of these settlements in Germany. Similar results have their walls, the actual size mostly depends on the been made for the pollen from honey found in princely particular topographic configuration. A determination graves near the Glauberg (Rösch 2002), but should be of the size of the hinterland of each town is even more interpreted cautiously because of methodological difficult than forAthens and Heuneburg (for Manching difficulties. cf. Sievers 2008). While a Greek polis used to have a Any calculation of population levels is highly certain chora, Rome expanded its sphere of control dependent on the size of their territory. When we think to become the outstanding centre of the Imperium of ancient Athens, we mostly have in mind the classical Romanum. For Manching, the hinterland surely can be periods with their well-known buildings, personalities found in the Ingolstädter Becken, but as the work of and tens of thousands of people. Nevertheless, the our colleague Michèle Eller (forthcoming) brought to 99 Chapter 8

Figure 8.2. Ground plans of Rome with the area surrounded by the Servian Wall marked in yellow (after http://www.rom.geographie.uni-muenchen.de/publications/ArchStadtRomHaeuberMapA.jpg accessed on 4 Feb. 2017) and the oppidum of Manching with the main excavations (after Sievers 2007, fig. 14). Again, the size of both places is quite comparable. light, the settlement structure is much more difficult in 390 bc, which was expanded in the course of the than for example in Ancient Attica, and the functional Punic Wars and suffered in the Civil Wars that led to differentiation between sites likeManching , Kelheim and the end of the . Berching-Pollanten needs to be determined. The number of inhabitants is hard to specify in Both places have a long biography. Several both cases. Rome derived its nucleation or synoikis- Neolithic finds come from the lateroppidum of Manching mos from several settlement cores and increased its (David 2008, 89), which lies on an important arterial population from hundreds in the eighth century to road used at least since the Bronze Age (Sievers 2007, a tremendous million in the times of Augustus (Kolb 20–1; Sievers 2008, 13). The population of the Iron 2007, 22; 71; Brunt 1971). Reliable numbers between the Age town was surely faced with some visible finds fourth and first centurybc do not exist, but they should from these epochs and they must have wondered and lie somewhere between thousands and hundreds of created oral mythical traditions about the presence thousands of people according to the known census of possible ancestors in the Bronze Age graveyard data. For Manching, the idea of a synoikismos is also a (Nieszery 1992). For Rome, several places with Bronze probable scenario from interpretation of the two early Age settlement structures and sherds are known that cemeteries (Sievers 2007, 24–7) and the abrupt rise of predate the mythic Romulean foundation traditionally the settled territory parallel to the abandonment of thought to take place in the eighth century bc. The fact settlements in the hinterland around 200bc (Eller et al. that the Romans were also well-aware of the history of 2012; Winger 2015, 109–111). The number of inhabit- their city can be seen in the ‘House of Romulus’ that ants can only be guessed as amounting to thousands was presented on the in Augustan times of people (Sievers 2007, 55). (Coarelli 2013, 155–62). The main period of Iron Age Visitors surely noticed the moment when they settlement in Manching lies in the early fourth to first entered both cities. Although the Murus Gallicus in half of the first centurybc . In this turbulent time, Rome Manching was not built until the final decades of the built the Servian wall after the sacking by the Gauls second century bc, the boundary of the settlement had 100 Not built in a day

been distinguishable in earlier times from the presence building has prevented the preservation of hardly of ditches similar to the Roman (Brestel 2015). any house of this time in Rome, not least because the Inside the town walls, diversified building structures large building programme of Augustus which claimed indicated various functions of buildings like sanctuar- to have turned a city of bricks into one of marble ies, stables, craftspeople workshops and the like (Fig. (Suetonius, Augustus 28,3) reworked a tremendous 8.3; cf. Wendling 2013, 473–6). Unfortunately later number of buildings. One isolated surviving example

Figure 8.3. Diversity of building structures in the northern part of the ‘Südumgehung’ at Manching – longhouses (stables and barns), workshops, temples, residential buildings etc. (Winger 2015, fig. 83). 101 Chapter 8

is the temple of Hercules Victor in the the social networks of the benefits for the deserving which was erected in the second century bc and is the poor of Athens and Rome in the relevant periods and oldest preserved marble building in Rome. we know literally nothing about this for Heuneburg The town/city centres in both cases were the areas and Manching. However, it can be assumed that there with the highest accessibility and thus were character- were more opportunities not only for the rich, but also ized by public open spaces, important sanctuaries and for the poor, sick and beggars, as well as for thieves in – only proven in the case of Rome – political and admin- the urban settlements. istrative buildings. These open spaces and sanctuaries As the resident of a Greek polis saw himself as an in both settlements offered space for representation Athenian or Spartan and modern teenagers from Berlin and ritual acts that surely played an important role look down on their contemporaries from provincial for the formation of towns (Fernández-Götz 2014d). Potsdam, we regularly identify with the city we are The societies of both settlements included an living in. Paul Sinclair and his colleagues defined this as aristocracy which revealed itself by extraordinary the ‘Urban Mind’ – a global phenomenon throughout wealth and building structures. Both cities surely had time (Sinclair et al. 2010). Of course, this understanding priests – in the case of Manching this group of persons of urbanism can be assigned to the Iron Age people might be identical to the term ‘druids’ mentioned by living on the territory of today’s Germany. In fact, the Caesar. Other groups like merchants, craftspeople, antagonism between townspeople and countrymen farmers and slaves are also proven for both cities. is no new phenomenon limited to a certain epoch If we take a look at the four settlements compared or cultural environment and I profess here that the in this paper nowadays, significant differences of quality of life in the town or rural settlements is quite course occur. While the Heuneburg and Manching are far comparable during different times and between diverse behind in their relative importance in Iron Age times, cultural settings. both Athens and Rome have also intermittently grown and are modern metropolises today. Rome retains the Conclusion most amazing biography, as it stayed in the middle of different territorial, political and cultural systems. It In conclusion, I suggest that we can detect a valid was the centre of the League, the Roman citizens comparision between the Iron Age towns on German and their colonies, the Mediterranean Imperium and soil and the Mediterranean cities of Athens and Rome. the Latin Christianity. Thus, the only thing held in To draw these analogies, it is essential to clear from common for Rome and Manching today is the fact that our minds the images we have of ancient towns made both of them are a location for an airport because of from marble inhabited by philosophers and tragedians. the flatness of the local terrain. Athens similarly lays Although Athens and Rome can look back on outstand- claim to its international importance as the foundation ing biographies, their seminal outline in times parallel place of democracy and a broad linkage to events such to the heyday of the Heuneburg and Manching was as the Olympic Games. relatively modest. In my opinion, this is mainly due to the fact that four examples of endogenous urbani- Identity and the city: ‘I want to be a part of it’ zation have been compared. When Holger Baitinger contrasted the layout of the Fürstensitzewith the town of After this very brief contrasting juxtaposition of Athens Selinunte that was a Greek colony and thus a planned and Heuneburg, Rome and Manching, I want to raise the city, with an already formed history, he hardly found question level of the quality of life for the inhabitants of any analogies (Baitinger 2013, 253–7). these settlements. It is not without reason that Roman It is obvious that this very short portrayal can only aristocrats almost regularly had country residences to begin to trace the question of the quality of Iron Age escape the Eternal City (Kolb 2007, 44–7). With a high urbanism. The author will try to develop this subject level of inhabitants, social stress and risk of epidemic in future work and also involve remarks from the infections escalates. Waste, refuse and smells become a discussion after the presentation that inter alia stressed problem in bigger settlements. However, just as today the idea of the Axial Age (Jaspers 1949). there were more benefits to attract the vast number of people to live in the cities: It is in the nature of things Acknowledgements that living in the town always means a benefit of education and innovation. In contrast to rural settle- I would like to thank the organizers of the original ments, a city also provides its people with breaking symposium, including Simon Stoddart. I am grateful news, access to foreign goods and a closeness to social to Axel Posluschny for pointing out the characteristics and political organization. We know very little about of the Glauberg pollen and to all the other discussants. 102